If they signed the non proliferation treaty, then they shouldn't be coveting or seeking nuclear weapons. If you are going to blame anyone, blame iran, not us.
Rumsfeld says a lot, most of it he probably doesn't even know he said. That said, I think his reason for not wanting the draft was valid...a volunteer army will have more heart for the fight.
so while Bush is cutting funding to fulfill non-proliferation programs, an act that can only signal that these programs are no longer important to us, we're still going to expect that non proliferation treaties mean anything at all to anybody else?
You guys have all of the geopolitical savvy of a bunch of soccer fans. Iraq = Unfinished business. It wasn't about WMD it was about letting the world know that after 9/11 the days of poking a stick in the eye of the U.S. and living to tell about it are over. Sadam was a living testament to the U.S. fear of finishing the job, if it meant it might upset someone. We will finish the job in Iraq whether our allies or enemies like it or not. This may cause those who hate us with an unrealistic passion to hasten steps against us. So be it. Better they come out now, then plot in silence and strike when we are more complacent. Other more realistic enemies will realize it is better not to push the U.S. to the breaking point. Iran and North Korea will almost assuredly follow this path.
and you have the geopolitical savvy of a piece of chalk floating in a glass of koolaid - haven't you noticed that these sort of people are INSANE?!? yeah... they'll do the logical thing everytime
If by "almost surely" you mean, "demonstrably not" then you're exactly right. PS...if this was about proving we could finish the job, what was Afghanistan?
The political savvy thing was a joke, this is a soccer forum isn't it? Did you notice the part of my post where I wrote "This may cause those who hate us with an unrealistic passion" Didn't you think that covered the insane? And I don't believe that those in control in Iran are insane. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. I think they have a vision of the future of the world that is quite different from ours, but that also applied to the hard line communists of the Soviet Union. In time we were able to convince them that their vision was not going to come true. We will convince those who have a vision of a Funadmentalistic Islamic world that, that goal will not be achieve by engaging in violence against the U.S. OTOH we must give them the belief that if they can convince people in a peaceful manner that their religion is indeed the correct, we will not prevent them from doing so. The U.S. is not an enemy of Islam or any other religion we are only opposed to those who would force their beliefs on others through the use of violence. I strongly believe that Afghanistan alone was not going to prove that the U.S. is serious about changing the conditions that led to 9-11. I don't even believe Iraq alone will. Iraq is just the next step in a long policy that will prove that the U.S. will no longer set itself up to be attacked. This policy will involve both carrots and sticks. Hopefully our current president and the ones to follow him will continue this basic strategy, just as both Democratic and Republican presidents maintaining a consistant policy against Communist expansion which led to the downfall of hard line communists.
If you really wanted to prove a point re: finishing the job, why not go whack Japan? We let those *#*#*#*#ers up off the mat in 1945 and look at RCA now! Sony's kickin' their asses! Saddam was a has-been who hadn't posed a threat to any of his neighbors in over a decade. Afghanistan alone would have been plenty to "prove a point", had we not managed to screw it up. Bin Laden is making more records than Tupac!
Why do you insist on making a unrealistic comparison to Japan? Can we please look at things from a realistical political standpoint? Do you really think stopping in Afghanistan would have sent the message to the Radical Islamic fundamentalists that we were serious? Would it even have made a dent on the geopoloitical situation in the Middle East? If you believe as I do that it was not enough, what do you think the next step the U.S. had to take? Whether you like it or not, Iraq made the most sense. Saddam had already alienated all of it's neighbors in the middle east, so removing him was not going to meet with a huge uproar from surrounding nations. Iraq was already in violation of U.N. mandates that it agreed to in the previous war. Iraq has a huge potential to be a force for positive change in the region once it is back on its feet. That last reason may be the real key. I really think those who oppose our actions in Iraq are being a little short sighted.
Then we can obviously agree to disagree, or you can try to explain why you believe I am a lunatic. My guess is that you really do not believe I am a lunatic, but you really can't explanain why I am wrong.
How so? It's only a matter of degrees, really. (As an aside, how long were we in Japan after the war anyway? That was a people who knew they were beaten, and it took a long time to build them back up. I'm not sure the Iraqis know they are beaten. At the very least, some of them didn't get the memo. It's going to be a very very very long time before that place is a "force for positive change".) And "stopping" in Afghanistan? We pretty much just left without finishing the job. Had we done it right - yeah, I think it would've sent a VERY strong message. Moving on to Iraq while Bin Laden is sunning at some Sandals resort sends a very mixed message.
If we were serious about going after radical Islamic fundamentalists, why did we expend so much effort with a secular Stalinist dicator who pretty much enjoyed killing off the radical Islamic fundamentalists in his country? I mean, if were SERIOUS about going after radical Islamic fundamentalists, why didn't we just hang a left after Afghanistan and just go right into Iran? Talk about your "unfinished business" there.
The main message that Washington has sent by waging war in Iraq is that the world now knows loud and clear that we are way too isolated politically -- and way too stretched militarily and financially -- to even think about taking on the very real emerging threats that face this nation: that is, Iran and North Korea, perhaps Syria. But instead of being prepared to face real emerging threats, we are stuck eye-high in an optional war, bleeding dollars and lives by the day. If we wanted to do something against Iran, NK or Syria, we just are not in a position to do so today and won't be for a long time, save a major catastrophe. What a wonderful message of strength and wisdom to send to the Bin Ladens of the world.
1. You're advocated conquering a nation to prove something to stateless fundamentalists in other nations. Fundies, by definition, don't operate by our standards of cost/benefit analysis. 2. This action has left our military unable to invade, for example, Iran. It's well known that without international help, we're going to have a manpower crisis in the spring in Iraq. So obviously we can't intimidate anyone else. 3. We've isolated ourselves internationally. 4. We've lessened the public's appetite for further conflict. Each of these last two might be worth it if we had enough of a "plus" in the "destroy terrorists" column. Needless to say, invading a secular dictatorship didn't do that. 5. When we punish one nation for the sins of others, we either lower our own moral standards, or our leaders have to lie to us. Either weakens us. 6. Given 21st century morality and ideology, it's all an empty threat anyway, for our "target audience." This isn't Rome in the Third Punic War, destroying Carthage as a message to everyone else. The rise of nationalism makes such draconian actions vastly less effective, and modern morality makes such draconian actions vastly more problematic domestically. In short, you're advocating an action that weakens us and won't work and isolates us. It's an autogolazo of epic proportions.
Syria, NK and Iran are not threats to the USMNT, much less a security threat to the USA. Well, now that I think about it, didn't we lose to Iran recently. They have a lot of nerve to beat us at our national pastime. Let's go to war, boys.
I was very upset when we bombed Yugoslavia after World Cup '98 and not Iran or Germany. I was also upset we went after Iraq this time instead of Germany and Poland! And think if we had invaded Germany we could make Klose and Ballack play for us .
You're absolutely right. The prospect of a mentally unstable Oliver Kahn possessing nuclear weapons is beyond frightening.
We did not "conquer" Iraq, we liberated it. We liberated it from a man who had attempted to Conquer his neighbor Iran, Did conquer his other neighbor Kuwait, and gassed his own people. We will quite correctly turn the country over to the people of that country once what is left of Sadam's henchman are under control. Like I said, short sighted. Who says we want to Invade Iran now, or that the situation in Iraq will not stabalize, alowing the U.S. to establish military bases in Iraq capable of projecting our power throughout the middle east? I would say that I could give a rats ass about what France thinks, but I don't really think that we have isolated ourselves that mutch. Once The situation stabalizes in Iraq, I'm sure the French will only be more than happy to be involved in their economy. amazingly there has been very little complaints from other nations in the Middle east. I don't think that is a bad thing necessarily, as long as we have lessened the appetite in the rest of the world also. Once again, you keep talking about what it has done, instead of what it is the first step towards. You ignore the enormous positive potential that a free Iraq, with a large muslim population freely practicing their religion and also bein a strong ally of the U.S. can have on the region. No. Like I started this with Iraq first and foremost was unfinished business. We are punishing Sadam for his invasion of Kuwait. His continuation in power was a reminder to all nations in the refion that the U.S. was a paper tiger, and when push comes to shove we bail and are intimidated. That is the impression we have to remove from the minds of those who think that killing our innoscent citizens will somehow force us to retreat further. Whoever said that the U.S. needed to be like Rome. Do you honestly believe the fact that Sadam Hussein remained in power was not a symbol to the terrorists that the U.S. was weak and that continued acts of terrorism would drive us out of the middle east all together? Well we obviously disagree about whether or not it weakens us, or whether it will work in the long run There were lots of people who claimed that our confrontation with the Soviets weakened us and would not work, and in the end they were wrong. I hope that history proves that you are wrong also.
Then why did the Bush Administration tell the public it was about WMDs? Why did the Bush Administration urge other countries to commit to the fight because it was about WMDs? If it wasn't about WMDs, then the administration lied to us, and it's a lie with a twelve-digit cost in dollars and over 300 American lives and thousands of Iraqi lives sacrificed to this lie. And you're comfortable with that lie?